Hedgehog

OK, I skimmed the article and skipped reading the posts -- so excuse me if this has been covered. My three point idea to grow scouting: 1) Go outside 2) Do something exciting 3) Encourage the boys to tell their friends.

It seems you won't let his rest... what were you saying what about "troublemakers?" Although I suspect that you will continue to disagree with me no matter what I say, I'm posting the below comments for the benefit of others who are seeking to understand the issue.

Great advice so far. My addition is to recommend a stealth revolution -- that is, making a series of small changes by dealing with people one-on-one. Step one - focus on the dens (as others have suggested). If you keep up the recruiting, by next year you will have three dens excited about the program you envision. Those boys become your power base. Step two - focus on the Pack program. Befriend the new CM that was drafted. Come to him with an idea for the next pack meeting and offer to run it. Recruit others with a similar vision to do the same for later pack meetings. It sounds like the Committee has an idea of themes, but you can make them interesting. Nobody refuses someone who wants to do something as long as you make it an offer to help rather than to take over. Step three - plan for the future. Find someone to take over your den. Get to know the Chartered Organization representative. Befriend the current Committee Chair. Offer to move into the CM position at the end of the year or the CC position when the current one ages out. Decide which one you want -- CM is in front of the scouts, CC is behind the scenes -- and recruit someone who thinks alike for the other position. Step four - All politics is personal. Being helpful (as well as the other parts of the scout law) makes friends and allies. Talking up what you would like to do with others gets them excited and likely to agree with changes you put forward later. I have a ton of favors built up among the current cub leaders in my former pack as well as the SM and other ASMs in my Troop. Never write someone off as being impossible -- keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Step five - Find a beverage you enjoy and treat yourself to it after every meeting.

I would avoid building Patrol Boxes. First, because they are typically heavy. Second because I believe in teaching the scouts to camp for life -- and nobody will build a patrol box to take their family camping. Rather, they would stow their gear in something like this: http://www.lowes.com/pd_44066-61896-44066___?productId=3551290&pl=1&Ntt=plastic+storage+totes For pots, we have this: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003XDXH7Y/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=1FO1MKYKVPUM4&coliid=I2ZDVAR8XXF23S but I haven't been able to find it available anywhere. The next best options are: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001UABDIC?colid=1FO1MKYKVPUM4&coliid=IY0P911KP2HKA&psc=1&ref_=wl_it_dp_o_pd_nS_ttl http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0018BNFCK?colid=1FO1MKYKVPUM4&coliid=I37YESCPO9GBU9&psc=1&ref_=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl I like the GSI large pot with the attached handle -- it makes it easier to carry a lot of water for cleaning. I think Teflon on pots is a waste -- too easy to scratch but I think having a teflon frying pan is helpful (we have the 10 inch size): http://www.amazon.com/GSI-Outdoors-Bugaboo-8-Inch-Frypan/dp/B0018BK7T4/ref=sr_1_4?s=sporting-goods&ie=UTF8&qid=1444221213&sr=1-4&keywords=gsi+bugaboo We also have Lodge Cast Iron Griddles and Lodge 12 Inch Dutch Ovens for each patrol. For the adults, I bring my 12 inch cast iron frying pan and we are thinking of getting some for the boys (they really like hot dogs done in the fry pan -- nothing better).

@@Krampus, without seeing the analysis that the attorney or the IRS provided, I really can't comment on whether I agree or not. My sense was that the method your Troop uses (as you explained it) did confer a personal benefit, but was better than the facts in Capital Gymnastics in that the benefit was based on participation and not a "dollar for dollar"credit based on the amount raised. Depending on whether 100% of the proceeds are credited toward the scouts, what other fundraisers there are to benefit the troop as a whole and the amount of money raised per scout ($10 per scout compared to $1,000 per scout) as well as the other activities of the chartered organization, I could see how a that could be classified as an insubstantial activity For our unit, I'm comfortable with 15% of the amount of popcorn sales over $50 going to the scout for use to reduce costs of camping and high adventure trips or to be put toward their Eagle project. I think that is a private benefit which is insubstantial in light of the activities of the Troop and very insubstantial in light of the activities of the chartered organization. Any additional fundraisers toward a specific event (e.g. Jambo) go to defray the cost of the all the participants -- thus avoiding the personal benefit issue. No amount leave with the scout because the unit owns the funds. Each unit needs to make its own decision based on their facts -- my goal is to provide people with some basis for analysis so that the decision is not a knee-jerk ISAs are banned or a "we don't care we will do what we have always done."

if your post is directed at me, please let me know what exagerated concerns I have and which exagerated ethical standard I am applying. "We won't get caught" is no more a justification for ignoring tax laws than it is for ignoring laws regarding shoplifting, driving under the influence or recreational drug use. If following the tax laws is a poor example of the virtues of scouting, that I guess I'm a poor example. I've tried to provide helpful advice based on my understanding of the laws -- which, based on my profession, is significantly greater than most others on this board. If you find my advice helpful, I'm glad. If you don't, please don't kill the messenger. I didn't write the law or the Tax Court's decision or any of the rulings out there -- I"m merely giving my (somewhat educated) opinion of how I think they should be interpreted in this context.

The problem is that there is still a personal benefit. Juxtaposition intentional. Integrity is what you do when nobody is looking.

To summarize my thinking (not legal advice, just commentary): 1. Anytime the funds raised by scouts are used to reduce a specific scout's costs based on the level of their fundraising activity or the amount they raised is a private benefit. If the amounts are credited to an ISA and then used -- this is clear. If the unit tries to get creative (e.g. "the troop decides that the scout's credit is applied to reduce that scout's cost of the outings he goes on, starting with the first outing and continuing until the credit is expended") doesn't work either because it has the same effect. 2. Fundraising for a specific purpose, such as a high adventure trip, is permissible. However, the amounts raised must used by the Troop to reduce the cost of all participants. 3. If there is a private benefit, the question becomes one of substantiality. Some of the considerations in making that determination are: a) is substantially all of the amounts raised credited to the scout (Capital Gymnastics was 93%); b) is there any benefit for the group as a whole (really the inverse of the first question); c) what is the magnitude of the private benefit (are we talking $100 per scout or $2,500 per scout); d) how substantial are fundraising activities that result in a private benefit related to other scouting activities (e.g. scouts fundraise every other weekend but take trips three times a year vs. one fundraiser per year); d) what is the magnitude of the private benefit in comparison to the finances of the charted organization (because it is the chartered organization's tax exemption that is at stake; and e) how substanital are the fundraising activities compared to the chartered organization's overall activities.

See below...

I"ve never had to deal with the BSA letting someone go over a Troop's objection, so I can't comment on the ability to enforce a participation rule. Nonetheless, I can't imagine any of our scouts objecting to being helpful and participating in fundraisers that they have picked to offset the troop's cost of an activity they want to do.

That is not what I was trying to say. If you have a fundraiser for an event, it can be split among the people going to the event. You can even require everyone going on the event to participate in the fundraiser (everyone going is required to spend two hours either making or selling hogies on Superbowl Sunday). There is no need to split that among scouts not going on the activity. You just can't provide a benefit (i.e. a discount) to those who did fundraising without creating a private benefit. There is a 2011 Field Directive (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/booster_club_field_directive_6-27.pdf) that says as much: If a booster club confers a benefit on a participant in return for their fundraising activities, such as by crediting amounts raised by a participant toward that participant’s dues requirement, or by crediting amounts raised against the cost of a trip, the booster club is providing a private benefit to that participant. Consequently, such practices could result in the organization failing to be described in § 501(c )(3). I agree on the participation / free lunch issue. However, you can devise fundraisers where people are required to participate (hogie sales, bake sales, car washes, etc.) for the troop or specific events (you can make it so every scout has to do 4 hours of fundraising a year). As I stated a couple of times, having a private benefit is not automatically fatal to the chartered organization's tax-exempt status. The private benefit cannot be "substantial." In my opinion (that a $1.79 can get you a cup of Starbucks coffee), having 10% of each scout's popcorn sales above $50 (about 13% of the total proceeds and less than 30% of the Troop's proceeds) used to offset expenses for camping trips would either be an incentive (cost of raising funds) or insubstantial. You add that to event specific fundraisers (Philmont beef jerky sale, Jambo bagel sale, High Adventure hogie sale) with required participation and you have what you need. For anyone's troop or pack, they need to get their own legal advice and should not rely on anonomous commentary on the internet. The strength of the piece of paper you have depends on what that piece of paper actually is (Private Letter Ruling or something else) and what it says (as well as how close you are to what it says).

The Capital Gymnastics case (http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/CapGymMemo.Gustafson.TCM.WPD.pdf) held that the failure to share equally among all participants constituted a private benefit. The IRS argued: The Commissioner objects, however, that “almost all of petitioner’s fundraised proceeds are earmarked to benefit those individuals who fundraisedâ€. The Commissioner contends that this dollar-for-dollar arrangement constitutes inurement and private benefit in violation of section 501©(3) because the methodology furthers private interests rather than the team or the organization as a whole. (p.19) And the Tax Court Agreed: Applying the law to Capital Gymnastics’ facts and circumstances, we find that, in violation of section 501©(3), Capital Gymnastics allowed substantial private inurement to the parent-member-insiders who fundraised (by providing to those insiders relief from an economic burden in the form of “points†applied to their assessments) and thereby conferred an impermissible substantial private benefit on the child-athletes of those parents only (as opposed to its child-athletes generally). Capital Gymnastics authorized parent-members to raise funds for their own benefit but under the name of Capital Gymnastics and trading on its tax-exemption ruling. Capital Gymnastics rigorously assured that its fundraising did not generally benefit all the child-athletes in its programs but rather benefited only the children of parents who did the fundraising. (p.19-20, emphasis added). The Tax Court distingushed Capital Gymnastics' facts from other potential fact situations (some of which apply to ISAs): Moreover, this is not a circumstance (like, say, a school band’s sale of candy or a church youth group’s carwash for a once-a-year event) in which the fundraising is a tiny fraction of the organization’s overall function; here, the fundraising is, instead, the admitted “primary function†of the organization. This is not a circumstance in which the individual’s contribution of his share of the cost is optional or where scholarships are made available for those who cannot afford the cost. Nor is this a circumstance in which every member is required to perform fundraising and no one can buy his way out; rather, the fundraising was an option chosen by those who wanted to earn their assessments. The assessments at issue were not arguably de minimis charges that might be covered by a child’s paper route or babysitting, but rather were serious parental obligations of as much as $1,400 per year (on top of already considerable tuition of up to $330 per month, plus national dues, registration fees, equipment expenses, and travel expenses). Now, whomever you got advice from may be focusing on the fact that those who raised money in Capital Gymnastics essentially received 93% of what they raised -- so the amount varied among those doing fund raising. To me, that was not the determinative fact in Capital Gymnastics based on the court's focus on the benefit going to those who did funraising and those who didn't do fundraising rather than the quantum amount of funds earned. I'd be interested in seeing anything you have from the IRS because I've not been able to find any Private Letter Rulings on the issue. I'd be concerned that if the advice was given to someone who told it to a group to which you were part of that something may have gotten lost in translation. I agree you can raise funds divided equally for everyone participating in an activity, but disagree that you can divide it equally among funraising participants. The organization can raise funds for a specific purpose, such as to fund the Philmont trip. Those funds need to split equally among all those going to avoid a private benefit. Those funds do not need to be split among the other scouts (whether they participated or not) because the organization decided how the fundraiser would benefit the organization. That is, a distinction can be made based on what the activity is but it can't be made based on whether or the extent to which a scout fundraises. My concern is that your troop may think they are doing something that is perfectly fine when it may not be. I AGREE that the rule is absurd and is contrary to everything I've been taught in life and try to teach my son about paying your own way and working hard to get ahead in life. Nonetheless, I understand its justification, why should money earned by an individual through fundraising for a charity be taxed differently than money earned by an individual through other means (e.g. a part-time job)?

I think you misuderstand what I'm saying. If the reduction is based on the amount THAT scout raised, it is a private benefit. If the reduction is based on the application of the amount raised to offset the cost of all scouts, it is not a private benefit. Private benefit is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code or the IRS's regulations. The meaning can be discerned (a legal word for "guessed at") based on IRS rulings, pronouncements and Tax Court and other cases. The idea of private benefit most frequently is applied in the context of the officers of a charity getting excess compensation or a charity to fund medical expenses of cancer patients only funding the expenses of the charity's founder. So you can see how the analogy from people running charities soley for their personal benefit to ISA's is somewhat difficult to translate. What you say about fundraising for a specific event (i.e. send the scout's to Philmont) is allowed but the benefit cannot be targeted just to the scouts who raise those funds, but must be targeted to all scouts participating in the activity. What you said is not spelled out in the Internal Revenue Code (the relevant portion was reproduced in my post on page 2), the IRS's regulations (again, I reproduced what was relevant on page 2) or in IRS Rulings (the only one requested on ISAs declined to rule and the other rulings don't address the "shared equally among the participants"). Another way to think of it is if you get a benefit based on the amount you fundraise... it is a private benefit. As I've said in my prior posts, that just means you have to determine if the activities are substantial (or as the regulations say, "not insubstantial") compared to the chartered organization's activities.

I haven't seen that in our Troop. It seems like we get 2 former scouts (at least one of which are Eagles) as parents every year and another 1 to 2 adults who were not scouts but have experience in multiple areas (bicycling, hiking, climbing, canoeing, etc.) Although I grew up curiously wandering around mountains, lakes and forests in Poconos, I probably camped 10 times as a youth, 8 of them being in a friends back yard. Was in Cub Scouts and enjoyed the overnights and activities with the boys. Got talked into being Cubmaster. Camped out maybe 10 times in Cub Scouts -- all using a tent that could fit 10 people and sleeping on a Coleman air mattress. I thought Boy Scouts was all about adventure, so I started reading everything I could about backpacking. The ASM in charge of the outdoor program was leaving and I figured I could help out, so I researched every BSA camp and state park within a 150 mile radius. Took IOLS and WFA training. At IOLS, got interested in camp cooking - worked with the boys to do foil burgers and dutch oven pasta on the first campout I went on. One week while I was stuck in a hotel room on a busines trip, I took every possible on-line certification. Started reading about Dutch Oven cooking, bought a Dutch Oven, bought some cookbooks, bought another Dutch Oven. I had no background of what the Troop's outdoor program was in the past, so I proposed what I thought was good ideas to the boys -- they agreed, glad to not be doing the same old thing. The Troop now rarely "just camps." We canoe, kayak, shoot, do COPE, climb, hike, backpack. Dutch Ovens now go on every campout and are used to cook dinner and desserts -- dump cakes are now standard. You don't need experience, just someone who is interested and willing to learn.

So if I put a couple of racks of baby back ribs and a couple of bottles of Jack Daniels Barbecue Sauce in a Dutch Oven and cook for three hours -- is that BBQ?

I am a counselor for a number of merit badges. I've found that it makes sense having a small group of scouts (6 or less) work through the requirements together. For Cooking, we do an hour meeting (to plan menus and write shoping lists), a full day of cooking in my back yard (last time I checked my back yard was "outdoors") using the Patrol boxes and stoves and a one-hour follow up meeting. The scouts are then responsible for fulfilling the home cooking and trail cooking requirements. For Family Life and Personal Management, we have 4 or 5 one-hour classes over the course of 5 weeks. We have actual discussions of the "discuss" requirements. I find that the boys have a basic understanding but working with them I can get them to think about and apply what they know. They have to do their projects and tracking on their own and then report back to me when they are done. For Backpacking, we do an hour and a half "gear talk" for new scouts where some of the older scouts help out. Then, we do a 9:00 to 1:00 session on a Saturday morning where we do the requirements. Each boy "shows" a skill to the group (i.e. first aid) and then all of them "demonstrate" that skill. The discussions are done as a group with each boy contributing. They then have to complete the "doing" requriements and get back to me. I've got a bunch of guys that asked me about Camping. I'm trying to come up with a way to make it interestng and participatory. For the Citizenship badges, our Troop is doing those in two meetings with two months in between. The first meeting discusses the plan and some of the basic requirements, the scouts work on the remaining requirements (these badges seem a lot like homework) and then everything is reviewed at the second meeting. For Personal Fitness, the MBC partnered with a local gym. The boys met three times at the gym to do the testing, researched the other requirements on their own and then met with the counselor to complete the requriments. Our Council did its Merit Badge Fair last year over two weekends two weeks apart. The first weekend the boys met with the MBC, the did the requirements in between and then met again. Unfortunately, it was during spring break so my son didn't attend -- can't judge whether that was a good thing or not. My son's experience at camp for merit badges has been mixed. It took him two years to get Archery because of the skill component -- so I feel like they actually are folliwng the requirments. He was frustrated with sailing and horse back riding because he didn't get to sail for that long -- maybe a half hour with anoher scout -- or ride for that long - maybe a half hour. We generally discourage scouts from doing Cooking or Camping at camp just because it typically results in partials because most of the activiites have to be done with the Troop.

True story... I went to college in Virginia. At parent's weekend they had a barbecue with shredded pork sandwiches. Afterwards, my parents said, "the food was good but there was no hamburgers or hot dogs... how could they call it a barbecue?"

That is really the issue. The answer is to support the boys in their quest for adventure -- and we get to have some fun along the way too. The parents need to trust us as leaders. Part of that is being organized and responsive. Parents need to know that the adult leadership has its act together. We send out detailed e-mails to the scouts and parents explaining what we are going to do on outings. They like details like "we will be renting kayaks and life preservers", knowing the mileage each day on a trek, seeing a link to the website of where we are camping, knowing how long it takes to get to the campsite, seeing the map of the hike we are taking. They also like to see that we know what we are doing. Our e-mails provide recommendation on what to pack (especially useful for new scouts going on their first campout) and what to wear (no cotton ever) depending on the weather. Parents also like to be reassured. I can't tell you how many parents have confided in me that "this is his first time away from home on his own." All it takes is an "I'll keep an eye on him" to reassure them. Or how about the "he's never cooked before!" My response is "we've never had a scout die of starvation... anyway the older guys will help him out and teach him what he needs to know." I frequently get e-mails from parents asking "is this something good to get?" or asking for recommendations on what to get. Parents also need to be sold on the program and the idea of being boy-led. Most parents want their children to learn independence. As I've said before, I've seen the looks on parent's faces when they pick their kids up after the first week at summer camp and the kid has an ear to ear grin because of what they've accomplished.

@@SSScout Any amounts set aside for a scout account most likely is a personal benefit requiring an analysis of the substantiality of the fundraising activity in the context of the chartered organization's overall operations. in thinking about substantiality, I took a look at a lot of charities cost of fundraising and program expenses. A good charity has a cost of fundraising of around 10% to 15% (ie.g. it costs 12.5 cents for every dollar of donations) and overhead of around 15% resulting in program spending of around 70% to 75%. In many ways, the scout account is an incentive to raise funds for a unit when the scout receives a percentage. That is why the Trails End awards and even Troop or Pack incentives do not present a personal benefit issue -- those incentives are part of the cost of obtaining the funds raised by the sale. Arguably, the amounts set aside to scout accounts are part of that incentive provided they are not dollar for dollar (which was the case in Capital Gymnastics). Additionally, the organization in the Capital Gymnastics case SOLE purpose was to raise funds. Thus, providing a private benefit in terms of a dollar for dollar credit for the amounts raised caused the overwealming majority of the organization's operations to NOT be for a charitable purpose (i.e. a private benefit is not a charitable purpose). Scouting, as well as charitable charter organizations, does more than just raise money so the kids can go on trips. There is the educational portion of the program, there is the development of children as leaders, there is the service to the community, the giving back in terms of Eagle Projects (of which scouts in our troop tend to use their scout accounts to fund) and the religious component. Further, Scouting is likely only part of what the charitable chartered organization does. The real test is whether the the private benefit portion of the fundraising activities is a substantial portion of the chartered organization's activities or whether those fundraising activities are insubstantial when you look at the chartered organization's activities. Based on that, see comments below: The bottom line is that any reduction in cost to a particular scout based on the amount of funds they raise for the unit is a personal benefit. Then the question is whether the extent of the activities generating that personal benefit is substantial enough to determine that the charted organization is not primarily engaged in activites furthering its charitable purpose. This post is commentary and not legal advice directed toward anyone's particular situation. Everyone is advised to consult their own laywer or accountant.

I thought that barbeque was whenever you cooked using a grill. If I invite people over for a barbeque they expect burgers and hot dogs.

I like it and will have to mention it to my son for our next backpacking trip. When I was a Cubmaster, the Pack grilled everything. Usually hamburgers and hot dogs but you could do chicken (barbque sauce, teriyaki sauce, etc.), sausages, bratwursts and serve them all up on a bun. You also can do Dutch Oven pasta as a side -- easy and delicious. Just throw in 2 pounds of ziti, two jars of pasta sauce and two jars of water -- stir, cook with 12 coals underneath and 15 on top for 45 minutes, add mozzarella cheese and cook for 5 minutes more.

Again, not legal advice but commentary...

BSA rules do not prohibit Individual Scout Accounts or a portion of the proceeds of fundraising going to those accounts. The BSA's Product Sales Guide (Updated August 2014) provides: Private benefit rules of the Internal Revenue Service prohibit those involved in nonprofit fundraising from receiving a substantial personal benefit for their efforts. Some practices where dollar for dollar credit is provided for the sole benefit of the person who sold product based upon amount sold could violate the private benefit prohibition. While the BSA has not endorsed “Individual Scout Accounts†for private benefit of individual Scouts who participate in fundraising because of the IRS rules, unit fundraising designed to make Scouting affordable is a fundamental part of Scouts “earning their way†(emphasis added). Not endorsing something is a fancy way of saying do what you want but we aren't liable if you run afoul of the IRS rules. The BSA knows how to say you can't do something when it wants to. So that takes us to the tax rules. Let's start with Internal Revenue Code Section 501©(3) which provides an exemption for charitable organizations: Corporations, and any community chest, fund or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or education purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual... (emphasis added). The Internal Revenue Service's regulation, 26 C.F.R. section 1.501©(3)-1©(1), provides: An organization will be regarded as operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes only if it engages primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of such exempt purposes specified in section 501©(3). An organization will not be so regarded if more than an insubstantial part of its activities is not in furtherance of an exempt purpose†(emphasis added) The IRS's regulation, 26 C.F.R. sec. 1.501©(3)-1(d)(1)(ii), continues to provide: An organization is not organized or operated exclusively for one or more of the [tax-exempt] purposes * * * unless it serves a public rather than a private interest. Thus, to meet the requirement of this subdivision, it is necessary for an organization to establish that it is not organized or operated for the benefit of private interests such as designated individuals, the creator or his family, shareholders of the organization, or persons controlled, directly or indirectly, by such private interests (emphasis added). Read together, the IRS's regulation provides that any private benefit would not be an exempt purpose and therefore any activities related to providing the private benefit would not be in furtherance of an exempt purpose. If that is the case, then an inquiry needs to be made whether those activities are more than insubstantial part of the organization's activities. It the activities are more than an insubstantial part, the organization loses its tax-exempt status because it is no longer engaged primarily in activities furthering its tax exempt purpose. The case that has caused all the concern about ISA accounts is the U.S. Tax Court's decision in Capital Gymnastics Booster Club, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-193. If you are really bored and need something to help you fall asleep, you can read it here: http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/CapGymMemo.Gustafson.TCM.WPD.pdf In that case, the Tax Court held that a gymnastic booster club was not tax exempt because $32,920 or 93% of the funds it raised were used to offset expenses which otherwise would have been paid by its members parents based on the members participation in fund raising. The Tax Court found that "Capital Gymnastics authorized parent-members to raise funds for their own benefit but under the name of Capital Gymnastics and trading on its tax-exemption ruling." However, the Tax Court distinguished Capital Gymnastic's activities from other fundraising, stating: Moreover, this is not a circumstance (like, say, a school band’s sale of candy or a church youth group’s carwash for a once-a-year event) in which the fundraising is a tiny fraction of the organization’s overall function; here, the fundraising is, instead, the admitted “primary function†of the organization. This is not a circumstance in which the individual’s contribution of his share of the cost is optional or where scholarships are made available for those who cannot afford the cost. Nor is this a circumstance in which every member is required to perform fundraising and no one can buy his way out; rather, the fundraising was an option chosen by those who wanted to earn their assessments. The assessments at issue were not arguably de minimis charges that might be covered by a child’s paper route or babysitting, but rather were serious parental obligations of as much as $1,400 per year (on top of already considerable tuition of up to $330 per month, plus national dues, registration fees, equipment expenses, and travel expenses). Under the BSA, each Pack, Troop or Crew is "owned" by its chartered organization. It is part of that chartered organization -- just like a church youth group is part of the church (this is why Packs, Troops and Crews can use their CO's tax exempt status to purchase items free of state sales tax). So the question is whether allocating a portion of the proceeds of a once-a-year fundraiser to Individual Scout Accounts with the remainder of the proceeds going to another charitable organization (the BSA) and to the Troop as a whole results in the chartered organization to no longer be primarily engaged in tax exempt activities. Such a question requires looking at the proportion of the fundraising that goes to an individual (as did the Tax Court case as well as the cases cited in that decision) and the relationship to the other activities done by the charted organization (see the band example in the Tax Court's decision). As I said in my original post, this isn't black and white but a lot of grey. This post is commentary and provided for informational purposes. Do not rely on this post as legal advice. Please consult your own attorney or accountant for any determination of how the above discussed statutes, regulations and cases apply to you or your charted organization.